Living Large by Living Smaller

Dec 19 2011, 4:02 PM ET Comment

If you were watching TV in the '70s and '80s, you probably recall those shows that took you through the palatial homes of faded TV stars. The emphasis then was on size and grandiosity--if that Honolulu house had a swimming pool, it was great. If visitors could swim up to a poolside bar, that was even better. Private gyms were common, as were huge walk-in closets and wine cellars.

Even outside the world of TV, houses are still built on grand terms--in fact, the average house in 1900 was 1,000 square feet; by the 1960s, it was 1,200. Today, our houses are twice as big.

But changes have been heading in the other direction--and the reason why is obvious: those large houses are expensive to heat and keep air conditioned--and as long as our economy is troubled, that matters a great deal. The very large houses, the so-called McMansions clock in at around 3,000 square feet.

Small houses take fewer resources in their construction. They're cheaper to buy and easier to maintain, with far fewer things to go wrong about them. Smaller houses can be sustainable, with easier-to-manage heat and electricity electricity bills. Because of their size, they demand a simpler lifestyle; there just isn't enough space for you to accumulate a lot unnecessary stuff.

A tiny house can fit in a tiny space, like this very tiny one in Toronto. Or they can be made beautifully, like these tiny Texas houses, which are often made from salvaged wood. Or they can comfortably fit a small family, such as this in this house in Houston.

But. . . if they're so great, why aren't there more of them?

Partly because of bureaucratic resistance: the houses sometimes fall below the minimum definition of what a house is--to these city officials, the "tiny house" is more of a glorified shed, and therefore, they're undeserving of the proper permits. Neighborhood groups often feel tiny houses bring down the value of neighborhood. They also can make a neighborhood's density rise.

Activists feel tiny houses are the solution, though: compact homes with tiny yards work in cities--one needs only look to Tokyo for proof of that. Are tiny houses in our future? As long as the popularity keeps growing, and resources get more and more scarce, that's a given.